By the evidence of PWS3 and 4, there is nothing to link the 1st Defendant to the alteration either contained in exhibit 7 or the alteration of the date in exhibits 5 and 22 on the face of the application form of Fine Trust Academy. The learned prosecuting Counsel at paragraph 4.22 of his final written address himself submitted thus:“PW3 and PW4 testified that because it is 1st Defendant that is contesting plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III with him and he was the only one working in Abuja Municipal Area Council as at the time.” Hence, from the evidence of PWs3 and 4 and in deed submission of the learned prosecuting Counsel, there is no of the 1st Defendant to the alteration on the date on application form as it appears on exhibits 5, 7 and 22 and evidence are purely based on suspicion. the link the the There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence of forgery and uttering of a false document against the 1st Defendant. Thus, the entire testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses i.e PWs3 and 4 to prove count three of the charge is based on suspicion. The Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of THE STATE V ODUNAYO AJAYI, (2016) LPELR 4066 (SC) held thus:“The entire case of the Prosecution, in my view was built on suspicion. The law is that suspicion, no matter how strong cannot ground a conviction for a criminal offence. It cannot take the place of legal proof.” See also ABIEKE V THE STATE, (1975)9-11 SC 60, IDOWU V THE STATE (1998)11 NWLR (pt 574) page 354 and SHEHU V STATE,(2010)8 NWLR (pt 1195) page 112. In the instant case of count 3 of the charge against the 1st Defendant, the legal proof known to law in criminal trial either by eye witnesses, admission or confession or by circumstantial evidence, the prosecution failed to prove same against the 1st Defendant. Accordingly, the 1st Defendant is hereby discharged and acquitted on count 3 of the amended charge. 57